Curator's Note

While I had access to the show, I couldn’t watch any episode premiere of Game of Thrones this season. As such, I had to find a way to avoid spoilers for 24 hours after the episode premiere. Demanding that everyone in my social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr) not post on the show would be pointless. Talking about needing a work around on social media specifically for GoT lead to a colleague recommending Silencer, a Chrome extension that reviews social media posts for keywords and eliminates ‘spoiler’ posts from one’s feed. Here, it eliminates posts that reference GoT, Lannister, Stark, @gameofthrones, and 42 other terms. GoT is often mentioned in conjunction with promotion of the app by Silencer and blogs like Lifehacker.

As a fan of the show, however, I follow several GoT Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr accounts because, outside of that 24 hour period, I want to hear everything that everyone is saying about the show. My hope was that Silencer would trump social media algorithms, but this was not really the case. Silencer is exceptional at removing friend’s posts from my feed, but corporate sponsored articles and posts always manage to make their way through. Likewise, as a text driven extension, it failed to pick up images when the titles don’t explicitly mention GoT. To qualify, corporate sponsored content is less likely to contain spoilers in its title because it wants individuals to open the link and find out more. For the most part, one can use extensions like Silencer to avoid spoilers so long as she can resist the urge to click on articles from news sources and avoid Tumblr all together.

In a sense, Silencer marks a shift in how we think about the temporal space surrounding spoilers. Individuals gain greater control over their content on social media sites without permanently hiding information regarding the show. Further, individuals can decide on an acceptable time limit on spoilers without confronting fellow fans. However, it practices an erasure of content that in many ways goes unnoticed by both parties. A fellow GoT fan in my network might assume I am part of her audience when I have purposely removed myself for a period. In the same way, content pushed one’s way on Monday morning takes work to find on Tuesday. Avoiding spoilers means missing out on the discussion.

Comments

Interesting, Jamie. Your post reminds me of an article I heard on NPR titled "The Joys of Spoiling" by Lauren Katz that used GoT spoilers on social media as the springboard for their discussion about social dynamics around spoilers and spoiling. The gist of it was that spoilers don't always ruin the viewing/reading experience, at least according to a study performed by Nicholas Christenfeld and Jonathan Leavitt at UC-San Diego. They had a group of testers read short fictions that included a spoiler paragraph at the beginning of the narrative and then had the readers rate their experience in reading the narrative even though the plot was effectively revealed beforehand. According to Katz, "[t]he findings suggest that plot is overrated... that knowing the end — ahead of time — actually enhanced overall enjoyment". In short, the majority of testers liked knowing what was going to happen, that it gave them more control over of their experience in the narrative. While this quantitative study doesn't account for all viewers' experiences with spoiling, it presents an argument that seems to complicate the 'spoilers are always bad' assumption. The article goes into the dynamics why people spoil narratives and how people respond to the spoilers more deeply and is worth a read if you haven't come across it yet. http://www.npr.org/blogs/theprotojournalist/2014/04/23/306000145/the-joy...

I agree that individuals have different feelings towards spoilers. I prefer not to know before the fact and that's why I think Silencer is a good tool to bring to the conversation. I can remove myself from a conversation without dictating how everyone else chooses to talk about the shows they love. One thing I've found interesting is I have had friends who complain about a spoil, who then spoils the show for a larger audience. I do think more research needs to be done on perceptions on spoilers before we really have an idea of how individuals perceive them.

Jamie, fantastic area of discussion relating the social media quandaries audiences face with texts like GoT. GoT perhaps more than any other popular entertainment has nearly performed the impossible when it comes to fans of the literary source material staying relatively "mum" when it comes to key narrative twists. That said, with each season GoT now grows larger in popularity and thus avoiding spoilers becomes almost inescapable. Although some recent research (see the highly circulated findings Sarah mentioned) claims most audiences do not mind (or rather embrace) **SPOILERS**, there remains a certain social stigma to having a text spoiled. Yet we might also recognize a social stigma related to those that do not stay up to date on programs or live airings (I'm reminded of a recent late-night comedian that performed a bit where nobody has the excuse to request "spoiler sensitivity" with regards to "Breaking Bad" anymore...If you haven't seen it by this point, it's on you.). It might seem laughable at first, but spoiler culture and the audience idiosyncrasies that encompass such discourse can be every bit as taboo as GoT's content for some fans. I love reading your first-hand experiences with Silencer. This is the kind of technology I would have used for years and years. That said, as an academic I now find myself simultaneously avoiding reading spoilers before I can catch a show but also archiving the articles without reading them for future research potential. You note a solid observation in differentiating between how cavalier audiences feel free to rant spoilers on social media immediately after airings, versus the cautious "click bait" protocol many news sites follow. These sites want to attract the clicks but must avoid offending cyber-sensitive readers that might "swear off" a Salon or Slate due to poor editorial headlines which reveal too much. Finally, your time-shifting discussion is right on the money in terms of short-term versus long-term effects. There are net benefits to live airings, but that kind of hegemony on time by the networks is proving a thing of the past. Time-shifting on the other hand speaks to the fluency of Internet culture and younger generations of viewers as well as viewing habits and preferences. One might "miss out on discussion" as you say, a self-fulfilling prophecy toward becoming a 'textual recluse'(?) Its a fascinating cultural debate and TV discussion and incredibly on point for a bombastically fanatical text like GoT.

I find my practices aligned with yours. On Mondays, as articles when through my feed I would save the links and then as soon as I had watched the episode I would open up these articles and read them. At Flow a few weeks ago there was a conversation on "Live Tweeting" even when you weren't watching something live. As we move more and more toward on demand viewing, we may just hunt out the community that is watching this show at the same time we are or people who have already seen, but have more things they want to say. This might be more relevant to GoT than the Voice where we often have things to say about a particular episode days/weeks/months after the fact.